Re: proposals

[jorge@PHYAST.PITT.EDU]

>         Since
>         the sentence involved does seem to contain a logical conjunction
>         (actually of three sentences) and the addition is only an _e_, I
>         would vote to stick with the present form unless a lot more study
>         of the consequences of the shift show some advantages to it.

I don't propose to replace the present form, only to allow a logical
extension.  The forethought form already exists, so if the afterthought
form doesn't make sense neither should there be a forethought form.

The nice thing about non-logical connectors is that they are not
automatically expandable to two sentences, as is the case with the
logical ones.  It is not clear what happens when a logical and a
non-logical get mixed.

Also, combinations with logicals other than {.e} make very little sense,
which makes me doubt that it is at all justified to have this mixed
forms.

Not all BAIs can be sensibly used as connectives, only those whose
associated selbri have the same type of arguments in x1 and x2:  du'i,
mau, me'a, ki'u, ri'a, ba'i, etc.

Another example:

        la migelitos prami la mafaldas maubo la susanitas
        Miguelito loves Mafalda more than Susanita.

It is much better than the {nemau} form, because it is symmetrical with
respect to the two arguments in x2, i.e. it does not take one argument
as a complement of the other.

It is better than the form with {.e}, because no absolute claim is made,
only the comparative one.


>              On lambda.  I always assumed -- and those who have used the
>         forms have practiced -- that insertion into an abstraction was in
>         order from the left into free spaces.

Well, I don't remember seeing this as a written rule, except in the
discussion with And, but I agree it is a sensible one.

>         The biggest problem with making
>         full use of this insertion procedure is remembering how to do
>         order n-tuples.  "John loves Marry more than Harry Sally" is
>         something along the line of
>         la djan ? la maris zmadu la xeris ? la selis le ka prami

I'd love to know what the "?" would be replaced with there.  I can't
think of anything.

I could get a similar sense with an unortodox use of "fa'u":

    la djan zmadu la xeris le ka [ke'a] prami la maris fa'u la salis
    John exceds Harry in their loving Mary respectively Sally.

But if we are not focusing only on the lovers, but also on the loved
ones, we could use termsets, plus my proposed {maubo} connector to get:

  nu'i la djan la maris nu'u maubo nu'i la xeris la selis nu'u prami
  [ John  Mary ] more than [ Harry  Sally ] loves.

(Using {emaubo} instead of {maubo}, that should be grammatical, but the
parser seems to get into an infinite loop.  I can't get it to parse a
sentence with {nu'i})

In any case, I don't see how to get your sentence, but I see that it
would require two lambda variables if it was at all possible.  Thanks
for the example.

>         but "John loves Mary more than (he does) Sally" is simply
>         la maris zmadu la selis le ka la djan prami (or se prami la
>         djan). And so on.  It was nice to see that xorxes also see this
>         pattern and seems to approve.  Neither the dakau nor the ke'a
>         plan seems to offer any advantages over what is already in place,
>         if implicit.

The {ke'a} offers the advantage of not having to fill or rearrange places
when that is inconvenient. The {dakau} plan, in my opinion, can't work
because it clashes with the other meaning of {kau}.

>         (But I have to admit that the possibility of trying
>         to get reflexives in does suggest one use for the fuller lambda
>         form; repeating the term involved seems unsightly.)

That's a good point. Also, if we want to attach a relative clause, we
need the lambda variable to be explicited.

>         For vector forms as sumti tcita, the head
>         is still the event of the bridi and the tail is the origin de-
>         fined by the tagged sumti, corresponding to the hypothetical role
>         of the hypothetical contextual axis-register in the form underly-
>         ing the tense-location form (and the other adverbial forms).

I'm not sure I understand the hypothetical part of that sentence, but
I think I agree. The origin is the tagged sumti.

>         The
>         same seems to be true for the mixed vector-tensor forms.

Probably.

If the sumti refers to the origin for the case of the "tensors", then of
course, it will be the origin for the combined form.

If the sumti was to refer to the magnitude, then we'd need to decide
what happened with the combined form.

(Other combined forms, such as {pupu'o}, have not been resolved, to my
knowledge.  It would be useful to have a rule such that either the
initial or the final term of the compound dictates the function of the
sumti.)

>         So, by
>         parity of reasoning, the pure tensor forms should be defining a
>         displacement without direction from the named event/location.

I'm afraid I don't follow the reasoning.  They could be defined that
way, of course, but why "should"?  I would argue that since it is
already possible to define the origin with the "vectors", then the
magnitude should be defined by the "tensors".

>         And the spatial tensors seemed to be used in this way: "near to",
>         "around", "a ways away from", roughly.

Yes, that's how things stand at present. Of course, there are also
FAhAs that permit to do that: ne'a, ru'u, to'o...

[I liked the explanation of forms like bu'uvi, cazi, etc. I now agree
that they are meaningful.]

>              2)The fact still remains that the tensor system is inade-
>         quate (and so, I think, is the spatial vector system -- can we
>         really even box the compass in lojban,

You can indicate any compass direction with my method:

   le tcadu cu se stuzi be'ava lei ciki'o mitre vu'aba lei xaki'o mitre
   The town is located (from here) 3 km north and then 6 km west.

(Assuming that compound tenses take a magnitude.  Otherwise, {be'aku va}
instead of {be'ava}, and {vu'aku va} instead of {vu'ava}.

I guess one could also use degrees:

   le tcadu cu se stuzi be'avu'ava lei reno julra'o
   The town is located (from here) north, then west 20 degrees.
                                   (20 degrees west of north)

but that only gives the direction, to give also the distance:

   le tcadu cu se stuzi be'avu'ava lei reno julra'o va lei voki'o mitre
   The town is located (from here) north, then west 20 degrees,
   a distance of 4 km.


>         let alone lay out a real
>         direction (or full tensor in the mathematical sense) in three -
>         or four - space,

The same methods work for three dimensions.  Four might get complicated,
given that time and space are grammatically separated.

>         We can -- and once did --
>         have a tensor form that lays any appropriate metric down: "three
>         days," "seven feet," or whatever is needed. I take it that goran
>         has proposed returning to this, as has xorxes (though, in the
>         latter case, at the cost of roving other items from the internal
>         system).

A roving which deprives us of nothing, and saves us from introducing
even more cmavo.  Everything that can be said with the current system
could still be said with the new interpretation.


>              But the tensor cases can be handled immediately and should
>         be, at least to the level of assigning _xVhV_ forms for the two
>         types.

I don't agree, but it would be interesting to see what grammar should
these new cmavo have.  A whole new selmaho, or can they be fitted into
an already existing one?

Jorge